BuzzerBeater Forums

your kidding right your making fun of the 1post in this thread that hit the nail on the head so to speak.

Well like in real life of course the amount of money you can make is variable. One of the things I believe the makers of BB tried to do was to make the market economy as much of a free market as possible. So prices will fluctuate up and down depending on the choices of the managers and not because they have been preset by any developer.

It makes sense then that some seasons trainees go for a lot more than in other seasons because it is the managers who are deciding to pay that much. In seasons where there are not many great trainees or players, the price they will get for those players is much higher and vice versa. This is similar to a sport where there is no salary cap. Owners/managers bid and go after whoever they want within their price range.

Also, I think it is important to note that for the most part you are competing with the members of your league (as someone said before). So even though you may be outbid on the transfer market by someone from another country, it does not impact you as much (although you may be sad because they can get better players than you). I think this makes training draft picks and trainees to keep for the future of your team much more important, because the draft picks you get are the ones that noone else will be able to outbid you on. And if your draft was not that good, that is the way drafting works in the real world of sports as well. You take a risk, looking at the skills or potential and just hope for the best.



Last edited by Glugs at 7/22/2010 12:13:57 PM

I think it will become a common strategy in the future. Sort of like rebuilding, only refinancing. There is currently one team doing it in Thailand. When he decides to spend his nest egg, he will be unbeatable for a number of seasons.

I tend to agree with this because it's temping to me so why wouldn't it be to other managers? This is unfortunate too because the great thing about BB, compared to playing Hattrick, was there is (was?) financial motivation to win and promote. It'd be a huge shame if BB becomes a game where its better to not compete for a few seasons for long term success. Long term planning is great, but if selling all your players and getting blown out in every game is the new model for long term success then the game will be way out of balance.

Of course, it wouldn't take alot of effort to make changes that would nullify this plan. The problem is the more amount of time that goes by the harder it will be to justify these types of changes.

Last edited by brian at 7/22/2010 1:22:25 PM

You'll never see an team NBA trade or fire all its best players and hire high school level players to fill out the roster.

The model that's working here is one of selling off all your players and replacing them with 3k scrubs, except for maybe a few trainees who will play 48 mins every other game. That's NBA tanking on steriods. It's as unrealistic as the enthusiasm system, and yet, it seems to be a great way to make a ton of money in the short term.

Last edited by brian at 7/22/2010 1:33:21 PM

I don't know about that... the Knicks seemed to be employing that strategy for the last couple of years. Every player who started playing well was almost immediately traded for expiring contracts, injured players, or worse. If they could have gotten away with hiring high school kids and paying them nothing, I think Dolan would have at least considered it. The only reason they didn't immediately fire everyone and start from scratch was because they were stuck with a lot of big contracts that they couldn't unload on anyone.

Every player who started playing well was almost immediately traded for expiring contracts, injured players, or worse.

The Knicks won a third of their games and average a -3.8 point differential. Even the terrible Nets only had a -9.1 point differential.

How is that anywhere close to losing all your games while getting tripled up on average? If that happened in real life nobody would come, not even Cubs fans to Wrigley.

If they could have gotten away with hiring high school kids and paying them nothing, I think Dolan would have at least considered it.

Exactly, Dolan couldn't do that because its impossible to do in the NBA.

I didn't say the Knicks lost all their games while getting tripled up on average. I was responding to your comment:

You'll never see an team NBA trade or fire all its best players and hire high school level players to fill out the roster.

Regardless of their final win total and point differential, the strategy they were employing was to get rid of players as soon as they started to play well. Offhand, I can only remember Zach Randolph and Jamal Crawford, though there were definitely others. The goal for the season(s) wasn't to win games, it was to clear cap space for Lebron.

Would you suggest a salary cap/luxury tax system for BB? That's really the only thing that stopped Dolan from firing everyone outright and starting from scratch.

Last edited by IronDoofus at 7/22/2010 1:57:41 PM

I was responding to your comment:

see: (152075.92)

Long term planning is great, but if selling all your players and getting blown out in every game is the new model for long term success then the game will be way out of balance.

Regardless of their final win total and point differential, the strategy they were employing was to get rid of players as soon as they started to play well.

I'm not arguing with long term strategies based around rebuilding your team. My whole point was the extremity in which it works in BB.

I'm making about 30k a week now (not including bonuses) and making very little value on training. I could easily sell of all of my players and tank for a the next 2-3 seasons and end up in D.III while doing some great training that's not possible while trying to compete. It would be easy to profit 200-300k per week minimum going this route, netting millions every season. With that bankroll and 3 well trained players you could build a super team that nobody would be able to compete with.

Last edited by brian at 7/22/2010 2:04:03 PM

I think it will become a common strategy in the future. Sort of like rebuilding, only refinancing. There is currently one team doing it in Thailand. When he decides to spend his nest egg, he will be unbeatable for a number of seasons. It will be my best option in about two seasons because my players are no longer valuable on the TL, although they are very good players with very low salaries. I don't think I will go that way, opting instead to try a new experiment when my team finally gets too old to take the floor.

It will become a common strategy for the teams that could be almost sure to rise up quickly,when they decide that they made enough money to build a competitive team...but also in this strategy,there will be enormous differences in the different countries
A Thai team of I division who decide to use this tactic,would relegate in II division,with the incomes of a II division team and a good weekly amount of money every week,so he can made this decision being sure to rise again when he wants.A Spanish team of III division who decide to use this tactic,would relegate in a IV division,with the incomes of a IV division that are too much lower than the incomes of a Thai II division,and he would need much more time to build a competitive team,only for the level of a spanish III division


There are enormous difference among the various countries,but the market is global,and the incomes are not related to anything else than the mebership to a certain division,who requeires very different levels in the various countries...so the economy is never stable because there are teams with really different weekly balances,while a stable market would require an equilibrium in weekly balance,and in the incomes/expenses/competitivity ratio